Not Tao:
What do you mean by saying theravada is more dualistic? I thought non-dualism was referring to anatta and emptiness was just another way of describing anatta.
I'm sorry I'm not a scholar, so I've no idea what anatta means, awful I know, but I'm too old to change.

Okay, examples of what I am calling dualistic practice.
1. "I will keep my attention on that object." Is a common samatha pracitce, v popular with Theravadans, note the emphasis on "I" and "that," subject and object clearly defined = dualistic.
2. "I will notice that category of sensation and formaly label or "note" that sensation using my mental faculties. This is called "Noting" popular with Theravadans, note the emphasis on "I,"that" and "my." Subject and object clearly defined = dualistic.
3. "I will conentrate on and area of my body and oberserve all sensations I perceive, then I will move my attention and repeat the process." Goenka tequnique, popular with Theravdans who don't like to admit to it in public. Note the emphasis on "I" and "my," subject and object clearly defined = dualistic.
Examples of non-dual pracitce.
1. "All sensations are golden/love/buddha/god-head..." delete as applicable. Popular with some ceremonial magicians, Tibetans (same thing.) No reference point at all. No subject or object = non-dual.
2. "All is god, I am god, god is me." Popular with nutters, various branches of Vedanta, all kinds of new age types. Reference point is pretty much everything at once, therefore no subject or object = non-dual.
3. "Breathe in love, breathe out love." This was a meditation instruction give by a recording of Thich-Nhat-Hanh at last week at my regular sitting group. Popular with Thich-Nhat-hanh. Love is not really an object or subject but what happens when you start to let go of both at the same time. You could argue that the injuction to "breathe" is an object, however I'm going to argue that it is not an object but a process. In any case when the practice warms up, you're just abiding in love anyway and the breathing aspect drops away. Love is not an object or a subject = non-dual
Now you will find examples of the 1st three all over Theravada in various forms, but rarely the 2nd three. You will find examples in various forms of the second three all over Mahayana Buddhism and the first three sometimes, but not so much. So when I say that Theravada favours dualistic practices and Mahayana non-dual, I am saying that that is what they actually do on the cushion, irrespective of what the books say. I'm also only really talking about the tools utilised to attain to certain goals. Not the goals themselves. More than one way up the mountian is the thing.